Evgeni Malkin has stated he plans to play in the KHL in the event of a lockout, but he also indicated that teammate Sidney Crosby might join him overseas. With pessimism surrounding the NHL labor negotiations and a lockout looming, star Pittsburgh center Malkin has indicated he'll play overseas in Russia if a work stoppage does occur. Malkin, the 2012 points leader and Hart Trophy winner, said he would play for Metallurg Magnitogorsk in the KHL if a lockout occurs. Malkin played with Metallurg for 3 seasons prior to joining the Penguins. Both sides have reportedly already engaged in discussions about a potential week-to-week contract in the event of a lockout. Malkin also dished an update on his superstar teammate, Sidney Crosby. The Russian said Crosby may play in the KHL in the event of a lockout., but he would not play there in 2012. Malkin told Lynsenkov that Crosby wouldn't come over to Russia unless the entire season was canceled, and that the Pens captain would wait until after Christmas to make that move.
If the NHL lockout threatens to cancel the entire 2012-2103 season, New York Rangers goaltender Henrik Lundqvist wants to play in the Swedish Elite League. There seems to be a real possibility that the entire season could be lost just like the NHL lockout of 2004. If that is the case, Lundqvist has expressed a desire to play for Frölunda of the Swedish Elite League. The problem with Lundqvist making a move like this is the Swedish Elite League won't allow players to sign short-term lockout contracts. If they come, it's for the full season. This is similar to when several NBA players elected to compete in China due to the lockout and were forced to sign contracts for the entire season.
There was more than just talking going on when the NHL and NHLPA met in New York yesterday. A fresh proposal was slid across the table by the league in an effort to reach an agreement before the Sept. 15 deadline. That the league backed off their initial stance has to be seen as a positive, but were the changes in this new offer "meaningful" as Commissioner Gary Bettman stressed in a post-meeting press briefing?
If you believe that the NHL's first proposal, the one that slashed the player's take from 57 to 43 percent while redefining Hockey-Related Revenue (HRR), crushing free agency and arbitration rights and extending the length of entry-level contracts, among other things, was a serious bargaining position. Then yes, but it wasn't, of course. From the perspective of the players it was a non-starter, and while it would be nice to think otherwise, so was yesterday's offer. At least there is movement instead of a full-on frontal assault from the owners, this proposal is more like a flanking maneuver. The end result, though, remains the same.
According to multiple sources, the new proposal features a six-year term. That's the easy part. After that, the math gets a little dense. Next season, the players would receive a 51.6 percent share of HRR. The cut would drop to 50.5 percent and 49.6 percent the following two seasons. For the final 3 years, the split would be 50/50. On the surface, those numbers look pretty fair, especially when you consider that the players would also get a share in any revenue growth that exceeded 10 percent in each of the first 3 years. But then you remember that the term "Hockey-Related Revenue" is being redefined essentially, the owners have decided to bake a smaller pie from which the players will get their slice. Those percentages over the first 3 years come with the caveat of a fixed cap that is detached from HRR. In 2012-13, it would be set at $58 million, then rise to $60 million and $62 million over the following 2 seasons. The players had a similarly delinked three-year starting period, but their fixed numbers were considerably higher: $69 million in the first year, followed by $71 million and $75 million. There's traction on the concept, but the distance between the numbers is staggering. Under the current CBA, the cap was projected at $70.2 million for the 2012-13 season. At this new rate, 16 teams (more than half the league) would be over the $58 million proposed cap. There was no mention of a salary rollback, like the 24 percent the players had to cough up in the 2005 settlement, but there's still a significant haircut to be taken. They can call it escrow, but by any name it means giant piles of money are being yanked back from the players. And so, despite Bettman's claim, this proposal is not different in any meaningful way from the first. A new approach, yes, but it's not progress. Bettman can suggest that revenue sharing 'will not make or break' these negotiations, as he did in a post meeting press briefing yesterday. But since that's the main plank in the NHLPA platform, it illustrates that the 2 sides are not even close to speaking the same language. The players are willing to take less money, but for their sacrifice they want a new system in place, a more effective revenue sharing model among the teams. The owners want to guarantee that they retain more revenue through a significant diminishment of salaries. There isn't any reason to expect that to change before Sept. 15. The reality is that the owners have no motivation to make 'meaningful' concessions at this point. They'll continue to play their game of cat and mouse in a way that makes their offer seem more palatable to the public while the clock ticks down and the pressure begins to weigh on the union. The NHLPA took the offer home last night to mull over. It's likely that much "meaningful" laughter ensued, but they have to know they're up against it. Their response when the 2 sides meet again today will be telling.
There was more than just talking going on when the NHL and NHLPA met in New York yesterday. A fresh proposal was slid across the table by the league in an effort to reach an agreement before the Sept. 15 deadline. That the league backed off their initial stance has to be seen as a positive, but were the changes in this new offer "meaningful" as Commissioner Gary Bettman stressed in a post-meeting press briefing?
If you believe that the NHL's first proposal, the one that slashed the player's take from 57 to 43 percent while redefining Hockey-Related Revenue (HRR), crushing free agency and arbitration rights and extending the length of entry-level contracts, among other things, was a serious bargaining position. Then yes, but it wasn't, of course. From the perspective of the players it was a non-starter, and while it would be nice to think otherwise, so was yesterday's offer. At least there is movement instead of a full-on frontal assault from the owners, this proposal is more like a flanking maneuver. The end result, though, remains the same.
According to multiple sources, the new proposal features a six-year term. That's the easy part. After that, the math gets a little dense. Next season, the players would receive a 51.6 percent share of HRR. The cut would drop to 50.5 percent and 49.6 percent the following two seasons. For the final 3 years, the split would be 50/50. On the surface, those numbers look pretty fair, especially when you consider that the players would also get a share in any revenue growth that exceeded 10 percent in each of the first 3 years. But then you remember that the term "Hockey-Related Revenue" is being redefined essentially, the owners have decided to bake a smaller pie from which the players will get their slice. Those percentages over the first 3 years come with the caveat of a fixed cap that is detached from HRR. In 2012-13, it would be set at $58 million, then rise to $60 million and $62 million over the following 2 seasons. The players had a similarly delinked three-year starting period, but their fixed numbers were considerably higher: $69 million in the first year, followed by $71 million and $75 million. There's traction on the concept, but the distance between the numbers is staggering. Under the current CBA, the cap was projected at $70.2 million for the 2012-13 season. At this new rate, 16 teams (more than half the league) would be over the $58 million proposed cap. There was no mention of a salary rollback, like the 24 percent the players had to cough up in the 2005 settlement, but there's still a significant haircut to be taken. They can call it escrow, but by any name it means giant piles of money are being yanked back from the players. And so, despite Bettman's claim, this proposal is not different in any meaningful way from the first. A new approach, yes, but it's not progress. Bettman can suggest that revenue sharing 'will not make or break' these negotiations, as he did in a post meeting press briefing yesterday. But since that's the main plank in the NHLPA platform, it illustrates that the 2 sides are not even close to speaking the same language. The players are willing to take less money, but for their sacrifice they want a new system in place, a more effective revenue sharing model among the teams. The owners want to guarantee that they retain more revenue through a significant diminishment of salaries. There isn't any reason to expect that to change before Sept. 15. The reality is that the owners have no motivation to make 'meaningful' concessions at this point. They'll continue to play their game of cat and mouse in a way that makes their offer seem more palatable to the public while the clock ticks down and the pressure begins to weigh on the union. The NHLPA took the offer home last night to mull over. It's likely that much "meaningful" laughter ensued, but they have to know they're up against it. Their response when the 2 sides meet again today will be telling.
No comments:
Post a Comment